Did you read where 200 of the 70 year olds and up retired Japanese engineers and nuclear experts have volunteered to go into Fukushima and deal with the deadly messed up power plant's reactors. They explained that at age 70+ they only have 15 to 20 years of life left so that a threat of getting cancer 25 years from now was no biggie. That attitude my friends is Truth walking among us. No greater love has any man than that he give up his life for his brothers/Country.

Ruy...If we postulate no increase in brain cancers from microwave wifi bombardments, does that prove that it has no effect on the DNA components of humans? And what is autism while we are discussing the unknown?

1) We know that electronic radiation from devices such as WiFi has no effect on DNA because it cannot break the chemical bonds in DNA. It is like throwing ping-pong balls at a Battleship; no matter how many ping-pong balls you thow, none will go throw the hull.

2) Autism is a different discussion altogether. It is a development disorder that severely impairs human interaction in those afflicted. Hope that cell phones are not blamed for it, though.

"Possibly carcinogenic" puts cell phones in the same category as coffee. The problem isn't with the scientists or their review of the evidence it is with a general discomfort or misunderstanding of uncertainty.

Direct damage of DNA is not necessary for some agent to increase the risk for cancer. Interference with apoptosis or DNA repair, increases in inflammation or angiogenesis, alterations in cell cycle control, cell adhesion, cytoskeletal control, are all mechanisms that can change the probability of tumor promotion or malignant transformation, and this list is not exhaustive.

"The problem isn't with the scientists or their review of the evidence it is with a general discomfort or misunderstanding of uncertainty."

As well as the ability of epidemiology to tease out tiny effects. I read a review article in Science several years back by a prominent epidemiologist who said that, in the absence of a credible causitive mechanism, he mistrusted epidemiological results smaller than a factor of 2 to 3 times. Remember that the next time the media reports that agent X is "associated" with a 20% increase in effect Y.

Someone should submit a law requiring the cell phone companies to superimpose a warning ("cell phone use may be associated with increased prevalence of brain cancer") at 5 minutes intervals over telephone conversations. I'm thinking the California legislature might be open to this idea.

I can personally attest that Herman Cain is a genuine and good man. He speaks well, he understands the questions and makes intelligent responses. Herman would make a fine VP running mate for Palin. Since he beat a very serious cancer 3 years ago, Herman has dedicated himself to public leadership speaking and has a WSB night time radio show that primarily teaches economics to listeners.

I watched Herman Cain flub the "Palestinian right of return" question on Chris Wallace's show a couple of Sundays ago, though he did at least say he supported it IF is was agreed to be Israel.

But what really got my attention is in an interview the next day he didn't make up some sort of lame excuse but rather owned up to not knowing what it was. He said something along the lines of, "I now know what it is (the right of return) and would not support it."

As well as the ability of epidemiology to tease out tiny effects. I read a review article in Science several years back by a prominent epidemiologist who said that, in the absence of a credible causitive mechanism, he mistrusted epidemiological results smaller than a factor of 2 to 3 times. Remember that the next time the media reports that agent X is "associated" with a 20% increase in effect Y.

The problem with that threshold of belief is that the relative risks or odds ratios used by epidemiologists are unitless measures and depend completely on the scale of the risks (and the outcomes). For example, your lifetime risk of lung cancer might be 20 times higher than a non-smoker if you smoked two packs a day for 40 years. But if you put it in terms of how much higher the risk is per pack smoked, it would come out with a relative risk of 1.0001 (or something like it). The causal relationship of smoking cigarettes on lung cancer risk should not be believed any more or less based on the mathematical scale of the relative risks.

I thought people were kidding about Bill Clinton having officiated at the Weiner wedding. Now I know it's true.

That only makes sense if you have a parody wedding.

"In some modern societies—and certainly Britain is one of them—satire is prophecy. This makes effective satire difficult because reality so soon catches up with it.[...]" (Theodore Dalrymple, Murder Most Academic)

TM: Not sure what you're arguing. I would make the observation that the risk of one pack of cigarettes being 1.0001 can be both correct and irrelavant at the same time, since smokers smoke a lot more than one pack in their lifetimes.

What I am saying is that choosing not to believe associations below a relative risk of 3 is meaningless because the relative risk of 3 has no meaning without defining the scale of the exposure and the outcome. Based on that commonly cited criteria one would not believe that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer because the relative risk for smoking a pack is only 1.0001.

Almost Ali, I've been following that trial, and every time I think there could be nothing worse than killing your own beautiful child, Casey Anthony takes another breath and adds one more blow to her family's total destruction.

Penny, I think you've rushed to judgement; the charge is thus far unproven. They haven't even determined the cause of death. The state is grasping at straws, what I call; accusing the nearest warm body.

From a personal perspective, Casey's mother (Cindy Anthony) appears to be the catalyst behind the horror. A genuine article, the mother from hell.

Irene - Yes, it seems reasonable doubt is a crazy concept to some folks. But in their defense, the media's guilty-drum has been constantly beating for nearly three years. And now they certainly don't want to disappoint Nancy Grace.

It should be interesting to meet up here after that, and have this discussion again.

It's a date.

In the meantime, it would be interesting to hear reactions as the case proceeds.

As it looks now from here, the state doesn't have a case, much less a death penalty case. We also have an otherwise smart Judge, the honorable Belvin Perry, who struggles with English diction. I imagine the jury is really straining to understand some or many of his words/rulings.

@Penny: I have the still have the stereo I bought at the beginning of college. Pioneer receiver, AR turntable, Sony reel-to-reel tape recorder (cassette tape was brand new, and not up to snuff yet), a separate Dolby noise reduction unit (also brand new technology).

We're entitled, Irene. Neither one of us are on the Florida jury that will determine Anthony's fate.

Ali's also right that Nancy Grace has beaten the guilty drum since the very early days. Is she "media"? Sure. But she's what I would call, "opinion media". She has a point of view...and she's stickin' to it!

rhhardin, did you notice your other dog picture on page 3 google images?

Google must award points for "being on the same blog as ..."

There's nothing textwise to point to it though. Maybe they're matching colors.

It's a nice pic if you go to it and click on it to enlarge - her eyes are on the smaller star like a Man Ray Weimaraner pic that I liked very much once - formally posed dog subversively spots tennis ball.

Besides, I'm curious about your mother's belief that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her own daughter. What was Casey's motive? Sex?

At one point during the trial, for example, a thoroughly dubious Judge Perry asked the prosecution outright why Casey didn't also "murder her parents" in order to better facilitate her supposed sexual rendezvous.

Penny - The problem (for the prosecution) is motive. If you've been following the trial, you know that virtually all the prosecution's witnesses have stated without reservation that Casey was a loving, caring, and attentive mother. Even her own mother (Cindy) said as much while on the stand.

Murder is a huge leap based entirely on the fact that Casey is a compulsive liar - more, a person who apparently lives much of her life in an imaginary universe. IMO, a defense against her mommy dearest.

Regarding the "chloroform" theory, all they've got is an internet search by an undertermined user - on a laptop that seemed to live life on its own.

And while I am more than capable of assisting her ride on "metaphorical buses", here and there around the internet, suiting one special interest group after another. I will leave it to the "fabulists" to keep her spirit alive.

Me? I gave blood at the office, and now take my transfusions as they come.